Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 407 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh @ Nimma v. State of Punjab

2012-03-02

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Vijender Singh Malik, J. Nirmal Singh @ Nimma, appellant has brought this appeal against the judgment of his conviction dated 05.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 307 and 394 IPC and the order on sentence dated 07.02.2011 vide which he has been sentenced to undergo the following punishments, which were ordered to run concurrently:- The offence for which Sentence awarded conviction was recorded. 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months . 394 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years. Fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.09.1996 at about 6.25 PM, Jasbir Singh, complainant was sitting in the office of petrol pump. Two salesmen Sham Lal and Khem Chand Giri were filling petrol and diesel in the vehicles at that time. In the meanwhile, a Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No.PB-11-A-6229 came there at the petrol pump. Three young boys came to the petrol pump on the said scooter. They got petrol filled in the scooter and then demanded the cash bag from Sham Lal. When Sham Lal refused to give the cash bag to them, one of those boys took out a pistol and placed the same at the temple of Sham Lal. He then tried to snatch the cash bag. Other salesman named Khem Chand Giri saw this and came forward in support of Sham Lal. This led to a scuffle. At this, the person wielding pistol, fired a shot therefrom, which hit the shoulder of Sham Lal. The other two men, who were having knives, caused injuries to Khem Chand Giri and Sohan Singh, truck driver of the petrol pump and Amrik Singh domestic servant employed with the complainant, who were present at the petrol pump and had been attracted to the spot by the commotion. They were also given blows with knives by the two persons having them. Attracted by the occurrence, the complainant also came out of the office and raised alarm. A number of persons had collected at the spot hearing the sound of gunshot. They started throwing bricks and stones on the robbers. Two young boys, who were wielding knives succeeded in escaping from the spot while the one having pistol was overpowered. Attracted by the occurrence, the complainant also came out of the office and raised alarm. A number of persons had collected at the spot hearing the sound of gunshot. They started throwing bricks and stones on the robbers. Two young boys, who were wielding knives succeeded in escaping from the spot while the one having pistol was overpowered. The police came to the spot in the meanwhile and took the injured to the hospital. The person, who was overpowered at the spot was found to be Satnam Singh. The pistol, which was recovered from the possession of Satnam Singh, was unloaded and was found having three live cartridges in the same. A rough sketch of the pistol was prepared. He disclosed the name of his accomplices as Nirmal Singh and Dilbag Singh. The statement of the complainant Jasbir Singh was recorded by the police. It was sent to the police station, on which the case was registered. At Civil Hospital, Nakodar, Dr. Tarsem Singh medicolegally examined Sohan Singh, Sham Lal, Malkiat Singh and Khem Giri. He also examined Satnam Singh,accused. Injury no.2 of Satnam Singh was declared grievous. All other injuries of Satnam Singh alias Satta as well as of the victims were declared simple in nature. Satnam Singh was arrested and on his statement, the other accused were also arrested. Knives from them were also recovered. Charge was framed against all the three accused for an offence punishable under sections 307 and 394 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During pendency of the trial, Dilbag Singh one of the accused died. Since the appellant Nirmal Singh alias Nimma had absented himself from the court and was declared a proclaimed offender, his custody was again secured by the police on 17.07.2010. The witnesses, who were left unexamined at the time of the appellant absconded, were re-examined. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused Nirmal Singh alias Nimma was examined in terms of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions. He has claimed himself to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated. He has denied to have ever caused any injury to anyone or to have reached the petrol pump where his co-accused was caught. He has denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions. He has claimed himself to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated. He has denied to have ever caused any injury to anyone or to have reached the petrol pump where his co-accused was caught. Hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has found Nirmal Singh alias Nimma, appellant guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307/34 and 394 IPC, vide judgment dated 05.02.2011. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given on 07.02.2011 and the sentence detailed as above was awarded to the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of his conviction and order on sentence, Nirmal Singh @ Nimma, appellant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. I have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant did not question the validity or legality of the judgment of conviction of the appellant. He expressed no objection if the said judgment was upheld. He has made submissions on the aspect of sentence awarded to the appellant by learned trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the custody certificate submitted by learned State counsel today, the appellant Nirmal Singh @ Nimma had been a young man of the age of 25 years at the time of the occurrence. According to him, he was having a small knife at the time of the occurrence and the injuries attributed to him are of simple in nature. According to him, no amount was robbed the appellant and others. He has further submitted that the fire arm injury was attributed to Satnam Singh and not to the appellant. He has also submitted that the appellant is facing the agony of trial for the last more than 15 years. He has further submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for one year seven months and nine days, as per the custody certificate produced by learned State counsel. Learned State counsel has submitted that the appellant Nirmal Singh @ Nimma remained absconding for about 11 years and that he has been arrested as late as on 17.07.2010 . He has further submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for one year seven months and nine days, as per the custody certificate produced by learned State counsel. Learned State counsel has submitted that the appellant Nirmal Singh @ Nimma remained absconding for about 11 years and that he has been arrested as late as on 17.07.2010 . According to him, he is not entitled to any leniency in the matter of sentence. The appellant attended the hearing of the case upto 17.12.1998. He did not attend the court proceedings thereafter and was declared a proclaimed offender . Learned State counsel could not point out any involvement of the appellant Nirmal Singh in criminal activities during the intervening period. The appellant must have lived in the state of fear during the period he remained away from the proceedings of this case. However, the same may not be a valid consideration for reducing the sentence. In the connected appeal,brought by his co-accused Satnam Singh @ Satta, the sentence has been reduced to the one already undergone by him i.e. 04 years 09 months and 12 days. He was wielding a pistol and had used the same in causing injury to Sham Lal. The appellant is,however, found to have a small knife with him with which he caused simple injury. It is a case where the appellant and his co-accused could not succeed in robbing the salesmen. The fact that the appellant was a young man of the age of 25 years at the time of occurrence is also to be taken into account. Keeping in view all these circumstances, I find that the appellant is entitled to reduction in sentence. Consequently, the appeal is partly accepted and the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 394 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The order of sentence is modified accordingly. The sentence of fine and in default of payment of fine, shall remain unaltered.